The evolving COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent need for scientific evidence, and quickly.
The speed with which the global scientific community has risen to this sudden pressing need is remarkable.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
The rise of the preprint
Scientific publishing is also changing.
Usually, scientific research is peer-reviewed before it is accepted for publication in a journal.
Now, we are increasingly seeing more results posted to preprint servers for more rapid dissemination.
A preprint is effectively the version of a scientific article that has not yet been peer-reviewed.
It is usually posted around the same time it is submitted to a journal for review.
The danger comes when a preliminary report is interpreted as definitive.
The fact that preprints should be treated as preliminary is well known by researchers.
Preprints allow researchers to get their results out quicker, but they should be treated with caution.
This is coupled with a desire for equally rapid dissemination of apparently noteworthy new findings by the media.
The overall sense is that the scientific process has been accelerated.
But is this entirely a good thing?
We all know from personal experience that when we rush mistakes are more likely to happen.
This is simply human nature, and scientists, however well trained and well-intentioned, are human too.
And we have already begun to seeretractions of COVID-19 research.
Understanding COVID-19 is a team effort.
The current pandemic is unprecedented in recent history and has demonstrated the strength of the global scientific community.
Collaborations both national and international have emerged almost overnight, and preprint servers have experienced a surge of submissions.
We are making progress and at an extraordinary pace.
Transparency will be critical.
Indeed, the mere act of making our research transparent may encourage more error-checking before we release our work.
False information is worse than no information at all.
